Device for Improving the Chemical and Physical Properties of Water and Methods of Using Same

ABSTRACT

A water treatment device for altering the chemical and physical properties of water for use in existing plumbing and/or piping systems wherein the treatment device may be customized for intended use and for treatment of the water profile in the geographical area of installation.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No.14/926,620 filed Oct. 29, 2015, now U.S. Pat. No. 10, 273,171, whichclaims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/075,474, filedon Nov. 5, 2014, the contents of which are hereby incorporated byreference herein.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention pertains generally to water treatment devices.More particularly, the present invention pertains to a water treatmentdevice for: 1) in-line installation within the plumbing of landscape andagricultural irrigation systems, residential, whole-house systems andpools, fountains and other decorative water feature systems and; 2)attachment to faucets and garden hoses for additional residential uses.

Municipal water systems adhere to minimum federal and state standardsfor allowed levels of chemical, mineral and biological contaminates. Butonly a small fraction of potentially harmful contaminants are subject tothese standards. In addition, these systems often add chemicals to waterlike chlorine and fluoride to help meet federal and state standards.These processes, as well as the high-pressure distribution systems usedto deliver the water, have the effect of creating an “artificial” statenot found in the best, natural water sources.

Depending on its source, typical tap water may contain harmful organicor inorganic contaminant minerals such as lead, copper, and strontiumand microbiological contaminants such as coliform bacteria. In addition,tap water may have inadequate levels of beneficial minerals such ascalcium and magnesium which are essential for cardiovascular health aswell as strong teeth and bones.

In many parts of the world, the only available sources of water fordrinking, irrigation, recreational and other residential uses containhigh levels of “salts”. High salt levels in the water can be damaging tosome types of plants requiring significantly higher levels of irrigationand leading to poor soil conditions, unhealthy plants and reducedagricultural yields. Hard water also results in the deposition of layersof calcium carbonate crystal or “scale” on the surfaces of pools andwater features and in the various surfaces (metal, plastic, etc.) of theequipment involved in providing water to pools and water features. Thisscale buildup can lead to the premature deterioration of these systemsand inefficiencies in their operation. This scale can also build up onother residential water using devices and surfaces such as showers,sinks and appliances and even on the surfaces of products cleaned usingthis water such as glassware and automobile finishes.

Reverse osmosis (RO) water purification systems are used widely toprovide additional treatment of water from municipal or other sourcesfor residential and agricultural use. Often, bottled water, usedexclusively by many for drinking, is also treated using RO.Unfortunately, RO is a very energy intense, wasteful and damagingprocess striping the water of all minerals (including beneficialminerals) and antioxidants, changing the molecular structure and PHbalance of water and producing harmful byproducts.

Our bodies function best when they are neither too acidic nor tooalkaline. Unfortunately almost all of us have become acidic due to poordiets, lack of regular exercise and stress. The degree of acidity oralkalinity is measured in terms of a value known as pH which ranges from0 on the acidic side to 14 on the alkaline. Normal blood pH ranges from7.35-7.45. To counteract the acidic effect of diet, lack of exercise andstress, it is widely held that the most beneficial drinking water shouldbe slightly alkaline, above 7.5. Agricultural applications may require adifferent PH target based on the crops involved.

Generally speaking, achieving the proper mineral balance, eliminatingharmful contaminants and improving soil quality are helpful in growinghealthy fruits and vegetables. In addition, by breaking up largeclusters of dissolved solids and dissolving salts, better soilpermeability is achieved. This allows water to penetrate through layersof calcium carbonate “crust” and reach deeper into the soil to providemore effective delivery of water and essential nutrients. The resultantplants are lush and more productive while using less water.

In light of the above, it is an object of the present invention toprovide the desired features described herein as well as additionaladvantages of providing a water treatment device that uses no chemicalsor energy, produces no waste, requires very little ongoing maintenanceand is customizable to treat the specific qualities of the water profilein the area of installation.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is a device directed to: 1) in-line installationwithin the plumbing of landscape and agricultural irrigation systems,residential, whole-house systems and pools, fountains and otherdecorative water feature systems and; 2) attachment to faucets andgarden hoses for additional residential uses.

It is an object of the present invention to treat water originating fromnatural sources such as wells, streams and rivers as well as municipalwater prior to end use.

It is another object of the present invention to provide a watertreatment device that is customized for treatment of the water profilein the geographical area of installation.

It is still another object of the present invention to provide a watertreatment device which alters the characteristics of water passingthrough the system by altering both the physical and chemical propertiesof the treated water.

It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a watertreatment device which utilizes at least four treatment modalities: 1)rare-earth magnets configured in a unique arrangement; 2) active-ceramicbeads; 3) vortex generators and; 4) design features which create a lowpressure/flow rate and high water-volume environment, in a single system

It is still another object of the present invention is to provide awater treatment device which can be custom configured to achievedesirable pH ranges.

Another object of the present invention is to provide a water treatmentdevice that when used with appropriate filtration technology, isdesigned to remove harmful contaminants and enhance beneficial minerals.

It is another object of the present invention to provide a watertreatment device that improves the ability of plants to uptake waterresulting in reduced use of water in irrigation and agriculturalapplications.

In still another object of the present invention is to provide a watertreatment device that improves the ability of plants to uptakebeneficial nutrients resulting in reduced use of fertilizer inirrigation and agricultural applications.

It is yet another object of the present invention is to provide a watertreatment device that dissolves and flushes away harmful salts resultingin improved agricultural production.

Another object of the present invention is to provide a water treatmentdevice that improves the permeability of water through soil, membranesand biological systems.

Another object of the present invention is to provide a water treatmentdevice that demonstrates its greatest affect on the poorest quality soiland water

In still another object of the present invention is to provide a watertreatment device that reduces the rate of hard water scale formation insystems handling water with high calcium carbonate concentrations.

Another object of the present invention is to provide a water treatmentdevice that dissolves previously deposited hard water scale formationsin systems handling water with high calcium carbonate concentrations.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The novel features of this invention, as well as the invention itself,both as to its structure and its operation, will be best understood fromthe accompanying drawings, taken in conjunction with the accompanyingdescription, in which similar reference characters refer to similarparts, and in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of the present invention.

FIG. 2 illustrates a flange unit as utilized by the present invention.

FIG. 3 illustrates an alternative view of the flange unit from FIG. 2.

FIG. 4 illustrates a large screen as utilized by the present invention.

FIG. 5 illustrates a small screen as utilized by the present invention.

FIG. 6 illustrates an assembled embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 7 illustrates a comparison of salts flushed from soil (g) bytreated water and control water.

FIG. 8 illustrates total salt distribution in soil columns as a functionof soil type.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

With reference to FIG. 1, shown is a schematic diagram of the watertreatment system of the present invention. The water treatment systemconsists of a housing made from a durable plastic material wherein thehousing is further comprised of an upper housing and a lower housingconnected by a coupler. The PVC housing encloses various chamberscontaining elements of the water treatment system. The upper housingencloses at least a first flange unit and a second flange unit, eachflange unit further comprised of a plurality of chambers, the chambersconfigured to receive “donut style” rare-earth magnets in a precisedesign. After receiving the rare-earth magnets the flanges are installedin the unit with their magnetic fields in opposition approximately 1inch apart. The magnet placement within the first flange may be the sameor different as the magnet placement within the second flange. The lowerhousing encloses at least a first screen and a second screen, whereinthe first screen may be larger in diameter than the second screen, thelarger screen fitting in the upper housing adjacent to the couplerbetween the upper housing and the lower housing whereas the lower screenfits the lower housing at the end opposite the larger screen. The lowerhousing is further comprised of a central chamber which contains aactive-ceramic bead mixture. For alternative embodiments, the housingmay be made from any durable material suitable for the intended use andsystem for incorporation.

With reference to FIG. 2, shown is the magnet placement within the atleast first flange unit wherein the flange also includes baffles nothaving magnets. In a preferred embodiment, a plurality chambers and/orbaffles in the flange contain a magnet. In a more preferred embodiment,the number of magnets may be selected from the group ranging from atleast 9 to 25 magnets. With reference to FIG. 3, shown is the water flowpassages in the flange unit of FIG. 2. In a preferred embodiment allwater passes through the holes in the center of each “donut style”magnet. The precise arrangement of rare-earth magnets in the at leastone flange unit and the space created between the two opposing flangeunits creates water movement and magnetic vortexes which beneficialalter the physical properties of water such as permeability and surfacetension. Continued passage of water through the active-ceramic beadsfurther beneficially modifies the chemical, pH, and electromagneticproperties of the water as it passes through the system. The systemcombines multiple modalities of water treatment (active ceramic beads,vortex generators and rare-earth magnets) within a single unit in ahigh-volume, low pressure/flow rate environment thereby maximizing thetreatment results such that water does not return to its untreated stateupon exiting the system.

With reference to FIG. 4, shown is the larger screen component whichfits within the lower housing of the present invention. With referenceto FIG. 5, shown is the smaller screen component which fits within theend of the lower housing of the present invention opposite the largerscreen.

With reference to FIG. 6, shown is an exemplary assembled watertreatment system prior to installation in-line with existing plumbing ofresidential, recreational or agricultural water supply systems. Watermoves through the assembled water treatment system unidirectionally,first entering the system through the upper housing, passing through theat least two flange units, next passing through the coupler and into thelower housing through the larger screen, and finally passing through theceramic bead mixture and exiting the system through the smaller screenin the lower housing. Water moves through the treatment system in highvolumes at low pressure as opposed to the majority of water treatmentsystems which force water through the system at low volumes under highpressure. Additional embodiments may be modified to accommodate variouswater flow rates and/or various pressure levels as appropriate for theintended use. Further in contrast to other treatment systems, the watertreatment of the present invention does not rely on external power ormoving parts. In a preferred embodiment, a subassembly of the flangeunits (with magnets), the screens and the active-ceramic beads iscreated in a separate, removable “active cell” housing which itself fitsinto the housing. A proprietary tool is required to remove the activecell for maintenance or replacement.

The water treatment system is designed to scale up in size depending onthe application. The basic configuration of magnets, active-ceramicbeads, flanges and chambers remains essentially the same regardless ofsize. Units range in size as follows: 2 inch, 3 inch, 6 inch, 8 inch and12 inch depending on the pipe size they are installed in and theapplication. The two-inch model includes faucet and hose attachmentpieces.

EXAMPLES Membrane Permeability Test

The membrane permeability test was conducted under laboratoryconditions. Well water was passed through a reverse osmosis (RO)membrane (Toray TMG 20-400) before and after treatment at constantpressure and two different flow rates. Water had relatively high saltcontent (2 g/L) and was passed at 50 psi at room temperature. The amountof passed water was recorded at 5 min. increment for 1 hour. Eachexperiment was repeated three times. All experimental data werenormalized according to the standard procedure for RO membranes. Theresults show that treated water had higher permeability as seen inTable 1. Water permeability was presented as a ratio of a normalizedamount of water (ml) passed through the membrane per one minute toapplied pressure.

TABLE 1 Flow rate, Pressure, Permeability, Difference, Water ml/min psiml/min × psi % Treated 65 50 ± 5 4.706 ± 0.111 11.9 Not-treated 4.146 ±0.172 Treated 75 5.148 ± 0.245 14.3 Not-treated 4.502 ± 0.402

Water Chemistry

Initial water chemistry experiments were conducted in a closed loopsystem that included a pump, 10 gal tank, the treatment device (WWTS)and control valves (bypassing or passing through WWTS). Four differentwater sources (three from wells in and around San Diego, Calif., and afourth from Escondido, Calif.'s municipal water source) were used. Saltcontent, measured by electrical conductivity (EC) ranged from 1.0 mS/cmto 5.4 mS/cm. Water was circulated for 30 min bypassing WWTS after whichan initial sample was taken. Three samples were then taken after one,three and nine passes through the system including WWTS. Samples wereanalyzed in the laboratory one to two hours after the samples weretaken.

TABLE 2 Analyte, mg/L Initial Pass 1 Pass 3 Pass 9 Well #1 (May 15,2015) Cations: Calcium 708.9 677.2 675.1 667.8 Magnesium 103.2 99.0 98.598.7 Potassium 4.5 3.6 2.5 3.3 Sodium 350.7 338.7 337.7 334.1 Anions:Chloride 1377.6 1312.2 1318.1 1318.1 Nitrate as N 12.2 11.8 12.0 11.8Sulfate 573.9 553.3 558.0 557.2 Total Alkalinity Bicarbonate 361 356 351346 Total Alkalinity 296 292 288 284 as CaCO₃ pH 7.05 7.10 7.10 7.12 EC,mS/cm 5.40 5.14 5.14 5.14 Well #2 (May 14, 2015) Cations: Calcium 305.0297.0 301.6 302.0 Magnesium 102.2 99.5 101.1 100.9 Potassium 7.2 6.7 6.76.9 Sodium 274.8 269.3 271.0 273.2 Anions: Chloride 951.2 913.2 927.8913.6 Sulfate 573.9 553.3 558.0 557.2 Total Alkalinity Bicarbonate 195195 193 195 Total Alkalinity 160 160 158 160 as CaCO₃ pH 7.45 7.56 7.687.94 EC, mS/cm 3.49 3.42 3.43 3.42 Well#3 (May 18, 2015) Cations:Calcium 173.7 171.1 168.3 168.3 Magnesium 71.8 70.8 68.9 69.3 Potassium7.0 6.6 6.3 6.6 Sodium 150.8 148.8 148.2 148.7 Anions: Chloride 286.3282.8 279.8 275.4 Nitrate as N 5.3 4.8 5.0 4.7 Sulfate 369.9 370.5 367.5362.1 Total Alkalinity Bicarbonate 249 249 249 249 Total Alkalinity 204204 204 204 as CaCO₃ pH 7.51 7.52 7.54 7.56 EC, mS/cm 1.91 1.89 1.861.85 Municipal Water (May 18, 2015) Cations: Calcium 76.8 76.2 77.2 78.3Magnesium 25.1 24.7 25.5 25.7 Potassium 5.2 4.9 5.2 5.0 Sodium 105.8104.3 106.5 106.7 Anions: Chloride 97.6 98.5 99.5 100.3 Sulfate 226.1226.5 226.6 226.7 Total Alkalinity Bicarbonate 44 44 44 48 TotalAlkalinity 54 54 54 58 as CaCO₃ pH 7.99 8.01 8.01 8.02 EC, mS/cm 1.001.00 1.01 1.01

Subsequent water chemistry experiments were conducted with modified WWTSunits that contained either only magnets, or only active-ceramic beads.Experiments were conducted with three different types of Biocera CeramicBalls: CA, TO and SP in separate modified WWTS units. According toBiocera's website, their active-ceramic beads use different combinationsof natural minerals to create products with varying properties,dependent on the application. In water treatment applications theactive-ceramic beads assist in the removal of impurities from the waterand supply a wide range of beneficial minerals and energy.

The experimental goal was to determine the chemical properties of waterafter bead treatment by measuring ionic concentrations (cations andanions) and pH.

Three (3.0) gallons of water were passed through beads at a flow rate of150 ml/min. The volume of beads in the modified WWTS units was 53 cm³and retention time was 21.2 sec. Three types of water wereinvestigated—distilled, municipal and well water. During the experimentswater samples were taken to analyze anion/cation concentrations, pH, andEC. Experiments were immediately conducted in the laboratory due toconcerns regarding the time gap between experiment and analysis. Treatedwater could quickly lose changed property characteristics if theanalysis delayed.

Subsequent water chemistry experimental results from the modified WWTSunit containing only magnets showed no effect on either water chemistryor PH. Distilled water, as expected, had the lowest EC (2.5-3.0 uS/cm)and pH 5.5-6.5. Water chemistry results from the modified WWTS unitcontaining only CA active-ceramic beads (mainly composed of calcium andmagnesium oxides) showed the most significant changes. EC significantlyincreased from 2.8 to 31.6 uS/cm and pH reached 9.5 as CA beads releasedcalcium and bicarbonate which are typical alkalizing compounds.

TABLE 3 EC, Ca, HCO3, F, Beads pH uS/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l Distilled Water6.0 2.8 <0.1 <1 No Water after CA beads 9.5 31.6 6.2 9.8 0.87 Waterafter TO beads 5.3 2.7 <0.1 <1 No Water after SP beads 5.1 2.6 <0.1 <1No EC, Ca, Mg, K, Na, Beads pH uS/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l Municipal Water8.0 977 69.8 23.3 4.1 96.9 Water after CA beads 8.3 968 75.1 24.0 5.0100.6 Water after TO beads 7.9 969 70.2 22.8 4.3 95.4 Water after SPbeads 7.9 972 70.1 23.0 4.3 96.1 Well Water 7.2 1920 171.2 70.4 8.5147.3 Water after CA beads 7.6 1907 166.8 67.0 7.1 143.1 Water after TObeads 7.5 1909 167.4 68.6 6.0 144.5 Water after SP beads 7.5 1913 167.367.9 8.8 144.1

Fluoride level increases were also noted in treated water. TO and SPbeads partly reduced pH but did not change cation/anion content (Table3). The ceramic beads had less impact on municipal and well waters.Again, CA beads increased pH, but changes to salt concentrationsdecreased insignificantly compared to distilled water. TO and SP beadsdid not show any meaningful impact on the chemistry of water.

Experiments confirmed that the beads reduced the concentration ofdissolved oxygen (Table 4). Importantly, the concentration of dissolvedoxygen was unchanged in water treated with the modified WWTS unitcontaining only magnets suggesting this effect was due to the beads andthat the action of the beads together with the magnets may have beensynergistic.

TABLE 4 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L Before After CA After TO After SP Type ofwater Treatment Beads Beads Beads Distilled 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 Municipal8.4 7.8 7.7 7.7

Results showed that the active-ceramic beads did not impact watersurface tension. However, water treated with WWTS demonstrated asignificant change in surface tension. Before treatment, the surfacetension of the sample water was 71.96±0.09 dynes/cm. After treatment,surface tension decreased to 69.56±0.07 dynes/cm. Thus, the completeWWTS unit changed the physicochemical properties of water. Therefore,the changes observed in chemical properties were the result of theceramic beads while the physical properties changes were due to themagnets. Treatment reduced dissolved gases, increased pH, and decreasedsurface tension while reducing the salt content in water with high ECand increasing salt content of water having no chemical buffer(distilled water). Ultimately, the water became more stable aftertreatment.

We have demonstrated that a magnetic field has a significant effect onwater properties. Passing water through WWTS subsequently favors thestabilization of water parameters. MT changed the physical parameters ofwater while ceramic beads altered its chemical parameters. Water withimproved physical properties is beneficial for a variety of potentialapplications including irrigation, pools, heat exchangers, and spotlesswater or RO systems.

Column Experiment

The first column experiment was conducted with sandy loam soil having ahigh concentration of sodium chloride. Columns were 6 inches diameterand 3 ft. long. A half-liter of water, either treated or raw well water(EC=2 mS/cm), was poured into the columns. Each column had a 1 galreservoir to collect passed water. Soil properties were determinedbefore and after the experiment which lasted one month. Water wascollected and analyzed three times during the experiment as representedby columns 1, 2, and 3 of FIG. 7. Analysis results of salt collected areshown in grams for treated and untreated water conditions measuring107.02 g and 83.12 g, respectively.

Although there was only a small difference in the passage of waterthrough the columns for treated and untreated water (6.45 L and 6.36 Lrespectively), treated water had higher ability to dissolve and flushout salts.

The second column experiment was conducted using three types of soil todetermine the effect of treated water on soil parameters. Soils areclassified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service into fourHydrologic Soil Groups based on their respective runoff potentials. Thefour soil groups are designated A, B, C, and D; group A generally hasthe smallest runoff potential and group D has the greatest. Therepresentative of group A used was “sandy loam”. Sandy loam has lowrunoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughlywetted. It consists of deep, well to excessively drained sands with ahigh rate of water transmission. Group B was represented by “siltyloam.” Silty loam has moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wettedand consists chiefly of moderately well to well-drained soils withmoderately fine to moderately coarse textures. “Silty Clay”,representing group D, has very low infiltration rates and consistschiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential.

Three columns (control) were watered with well water (Table 5) and threeother columns were irrigated by treated well water. Experiments wereconducted in PVC columns with a diameter of 6 inches and length of 3 ft.

Sandy loam was spiked by a sodium chloride solution to increase itssodium concentration in order to check the effect of the treated wateron this cation. Every day, half a liter of water was poured into eachcolumn. One gallon reservoirs were placed under each column to collectpassed water. Initial soil parameters were measured (Table 6).

TABLE 5 EC, Cl, Na, Ca, Mg, HCO3, pH mS/cm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm 7.51 1.91286.5 148.8 173.7 70.8 249

TABLE 6 Type of Soil EC, dS/m pH OM, % Sandy Loam 4440 7.61 6.0 SiltLoam 682 7.03 1.6 Silty Clay 946 7.86 1.7

Experiments were conducted over a period of one month. Soil was analyzedbefore and after the start of the experiment. Soil samples were takenfrom 1, 2, and 3 ft. depths. Water passed through the columns was alsoanalyzed. During the experiment, 3-4 samples of water were takendepending on the type of soil. The volume of each sample was measuredand the major parameters were determined (Table 7).

TABLE 7 Type of Type EC, TDS, Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, SO4, Water of Soil Sample# Volume, L pH mS/cm g/L ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm MTW Sandy 1 1.24 7.83 55.376.2 10464 3052 845 21018 1616 Loam 2 2.72 8.35 20.3 18.8 4194 986 2526311 1040 3 4.29 8.88 4.29 3.28 1023 120 27 446 425 Control 1 0.93 7.2787.9 121.2 16487 5279 1525 35903 2271 (NT) 2 2.70 8.52 13.7 11.9 3023672 150 3556 995 3 4.02 8.87 4.02 3.06 994 110 21 390 420 MTW Silt 10.83 7.63 13.0 11.1 711 1333 521 1555 2407 Loam 2 0.62 7.79 10.95 9.19732 1069 428 1280 2019 3 3.00 7.98 5.91 4.63 323 624 225 639 1470 4 2.078.36 2.90 2.15 159 268 81 401 814 Control 1 0.75 7.67 12.9 11.0 674 1364511 1515 2328 (NT) 2 0.98 7.92 9.48 7.83 640 954 371 1076 1906 3 2.897.87 5.77 4.52 317 606 215 632 1423 4 2.55 8.26 2.79 2.05 149 258 76 392767 MTW Silty 1 0.66 8.04 16.77 14.86 1279 1131 704 5486 1302 Clay 20.50 8.46 10.29 8.58 751 759 415 2933 3570 3 2.60 8.42 3.65 2.67 379 240109 653 633 4 1.67 8.52 2.46 1.80 164 245 74 412 518 Control 1 0.89 7.8814.06 12.20 850 1160 544 4691 791 (NT) 2 0.91 8.39 5.78 5.54 660 411 1921471 667 3 3.62 8.32 2.35 1.71 268 152 57 364 462 4 2.32 8.41 2.33 1.60176 269 79 396 528Soil that received treated water exhibited a lower salt content in thefirst few feet of depth (the root zone). All three types of soil had asimilar signature of salt distribution (FIG. 8). Soil after treatmentexhibited a higher concentration of salts at depths of 3 ft. and greaterand soil in the control group exhibited a higher concentration of saltsin the root zone. These results demonstrate that treated water flushedout more salts thus developing more favorable conditions for plantssensitive to sodium concentrations. Also of interest was thedistribution of various cations in the soil. The first few feet of thesoil that received treated water had less sodium and chloride and morecalcium and magnesium. Thus, the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) wassmaller for treated soil compared to control soil.

SAR indicates the degree of infiltration of a soil. SAR is ideal whenbelow 3 and acceptable when in the range 3-7. Sodium and chloride washedout faster for the first drain when soil had a high concentration ofsalts. Comparison of summarized data is presented in Table 8.

TABLE 8 Sodium Moisture Sodium Chloride in drain of soil reductionreduction SAR in root Type of compare compare in root in root zoone SoilInfiltration to control, % to control, % zone, % zone, % Control MTWSandy High 4.7 Reduced 26 13.7 6.46 2.78 Loam 8.1 Silt Moderate 16.8Increased 4.1 16.9 1.18 1.15 Loam 9.1 Silty Very low 11.6 Increased 4038 5.36 3.95 Clay 29.8 

The impact of treated water on salt distribution depended on the soiltype. Treated water had a lower effect in soil with high infiltrationrates and a higher effect in soil with low infiltration. For example,sandy loam had the lowest difference in sodium concentrations (in thedrain) between the control group and the treated group (4.7%). At thesame time, the sodium concentration in sandy loam was dramaticallyreduced in the root zone (26%) and SAR dropped from 6.46 to 2.78 whichis ideal for agriculture. Silty loam had more sodium (as compared to thecontrol group) in the drain but sodium in the root zone dropped by only4.1%; i.e. sodium was mostly removed from the depth below the root zone.The best result was obtained for the soil with worst infiltration—siltyclay. Sodium and chloride concentrations in the root zone were reducedby 40% and 38% respectively and sodium concentration in the drain was11.6% higher when compared to control. Thus, the results support theclaim that WWTS removes excess soluble salts.

Similar results were obtained regarding water absorption in soil. Soilwith high infiltration did not show a positive increase in soilmoisture. Opposite results were obtained for soils with moderate (Siltloam) and low (Silty clay) infiltration showing a significant increaseof the moisture content in the soil (9.1 and 29.8% respectively).

Treatment did not lower pH values of soil layers. Table 9 presents thepH of soils at different depths. It can be seen that pH was lower onlyfor sandy loam. Silt loam and silt clay had higher pH at all threedepths.

TABLE 9 pH pH Type of Soil Initial pH Depth, ft Control group MTW SandyLoam 7.61 1 7.53 7.27 2 8.08 8.09 3 8.10 8.11 Silt Loam 7.03 1 7.54 7.532 7.37 7.44 3 7.43 7.55 Silty Clay 7.86 1 8.14 7.98 2 8.20 8.10 3 8.168.11

Plant Physiology Experiment 1—Wellspring Facility

The Wellspring facility experiment was conducted with lettuce, LollaRossa. Lettuce seedlings (two weeks of age) were purchased from asupplier in San Marcos, Calif. Thirty-two (32) plants were grown for onemonth in one gallon pots to determine the impact of WWTS treated wateron plant and soil parameters. Plants were grown in four (4) differenttypes of soil (Table 10) that are classified based on their respectiverunoff potentials (A, B, C, and D) where A's generally have the smallestrunoff potential and D's the greatest. The representative of group A was“sandy loam”. Group B was represented by “silty loam”. Group C wasrepresented by “sandy clay” with low infiltration rates when thoroughlywetted and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedesdownward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to finestructure. “Silty Clay”, representing group D, has very low infiltrationrates and consists chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential.

TABLE 10 Group Type of Soil EC, dS/m pH MO, % A Sandy Loam 0.85 8.122.23 B Silt Loam 0.68 7.03 1.61 C Sandy Clay 2.21 7.55 3.39 D Silty Clay0.96 7.86 1.73

Plants were grown in eight lines with each line having four pots withplants. Four lines contained control groups for each type of soil andwere irrigated with untreated well water. Four remaining lines containedtreatment groups for each type of soil and were irrigated by the sametreated well water. Before irrigation, well water was pumped throughWWTS for 30 min in a recirculation loop. Two hundred milliliters ofwater were added to each pot daily, the amount of water consideredoptimal for the plants. After one month, the plants were removed fromthe pots and basic yield parameters (mass of leaves (in grams), numberof leaves, plant height and length of roots) were evaluated, as were thelevels of key macro nutrient concentations in plant tissue and soil. Thewater parameters are presented in Table 11.

TABLE 11 Analyte, mg/L Concentration Cations: Calcium 173.7 Magnesium71.8 Potassium 7.0 Sodium 150.8 Anions: Chloride 286.3 Nitrate as N 5.3Sulfate 369.9 Bicarbonate 249 Total Alkalinity as CaCO₃ 204 pH 7.51 EC,mS/cm 1.91

Results showed that the basic yield parameters of plants irrigated withWWTS water were higher than the control group in three of four soils(silty loam, sandy clay and silty clay). Sandy Loam, the soil type thatis most porous and has the lowest runoff potential, was essentiallyunchanged between control and treatment groups. Basic yield parametersare presented in Table 12.

TABLE 12 Length of Number of Soil Group Leaves, g Height, cm Roots, cmLeaves Group A. WWTS 7.10 ± 2.42 17.50 ± 6.19 11.75 ± 1.50 13.00 ± 4.24Sandy Loam Control 7.53 ± 0.83 21.00 ± 6.38 12.25 ± 2.63 12.00 ± 1.41Group B. WWTS 11.35 ± 2.90  27.00 ± 4.08 13.75 ± 1.50 13.25 ± 3.86 SiltLoam Control 8.26 ± 0.64 23.35 ± 3.40 11.50 ± 2.38 11.25 ± 0.96 Group C.WWTS 11.36 ± 3.57  24.00 ± 3.74 12.25 ± 0.50 15.00 ± 3.16 Sandy ClayControl 9.46 ± 1.61 23.00 ± 1.00 11.67 ± 0.58 11.33 ± 2.31 Group D. WWTS12.58 ± 3.10  25.00 ± 4.32 13.00 ± 2.16 17.50 ± 2.65 Silty Clay Control7.06 ± 3.31 20.00 ± 5.72 11.00 ± 4.32 11.00 ± 3.56

A leaf analysis of macro nutrient concentrations of all plants grown inthe four different soils is presented in Table 13. Notably, theconcentration of zinc was higher in all four groups. Zinc plays animportant role in many biological processes. It is essential for thenormal growth and reproduction of all higher plants. In addition, itplays a key role during physiological growth and fulfills an immunefunction. It is vital for the functionality of more than 300 enzymes,for the stabilization of DNA and for gene expression. In general, zincis believed to play a main role in the synthesis of proteins, enzymeactivating, oxidation and revival reactions and metabolism ofcarbohydrates.

TABLE 13 Test Description WWTS Control Unit Optimum Range A. Sandy LoamMacro Nutrients Total Nitrogen (Leaf) 2.9 3.0 % 2.5-4.5 Phosphorus(Leaf) 0.33 0.38 % 0.3-0.7 Potassium (Leaf) 3.65 3.65 % 2.5-4.0 Calcium(Leaf) 1.54 1.59 % 2.5-5.0 Magnesium (Leaf) 0.33 0.47 % 0.3-1.5 MicroNutrients Zinc (Leaf) 53 38 ppm 20-60 Manganese (Leaf) 90 94 ppm  60-400Iron (Leaf) 126 119 ppm  50-300 Sodium (Leaf) 0.93 0.95 %  0.0-0.35 B.Silty Loam Macro Nutrients Total Nitrogen (Leaf) 3.1 3.1 % 2.5-4.5Phosphorus (Leaf) 0.46 0.49 % 0.3-0.7 Potassium (Leaf) 4.89 5.59 %2.5-4.0 Calcium (Leaf) 1.18 1.45 % 2.5-5.0 Magnesium (Leaf) 0.30 0.45 %0.3-1.5 Micro Nutrients Zinc (Leaf) 54 38 ppm 20-60 Manganese (Leaf) 5352 ppm  60-400 Iron (Leaf) 105 120 ppm  50-300 Sodium (Leaf) 0.80 0.60 % 0.0-0.35 C. Sandy Clay Macro Nutrients Total Nitrogen (Leaf) 3.3 2.9 %2.5-4.5 Phosphorus (Leaf) 0.43 0.38 % 0.3-0.7 Potassium (Leaf) 5.21 4.56% 2.5-4.0 Calcium (Leaf) 1.84 1.61 % 2.5-5.0 Magnesium (Leaf) 0.45 0.45% 0.3-1.5 Micro Nutrients Zinc (Leaf) 46 33 ppm 20-60 Manganese (Leaf)53 60 ppm  60-400 Iron (Leaf) 124 115 ppm  50-300 Sodium (Leaf) 0.810.82 %  0.0-0.35 D. Silty Clay Macro Nutrients Total Nitrogen (Leaf) 3.22.8 % 2.5-4.5 Phosphorus (Leaf) 0.49 0.43 % 0.3-0.7 Potassium (Leaf)4.79 4.02 % 2.5-4.0 Calcium (Leaf) 1.45 1.65 % 2.5-5.0 Magnesium (Leaf)0.44 0.54 % 0.3-1.5 Micro Nutrients Zinc (Leaf) 50 10 ppm 20-60Manganese (Leaf) 79 82 ppm  60-400 Iron (Leaf) 114 111 ppm  50-300Sodium (Leaf) 0.87 1.26 %  0.0-0.35

Soil analysis (Table 14) revealed important differences between thetreatment and control groups. First, pH increased in all four types ofsoil. The comparison of the total amount of salts in the soil of the twogroups (control and treated water) showed that the control group hadlower salt concentrations than the treatment group. Prior studies haveshown that WWTS treatment is most effective when soil has a high sodiumcontent and low permeability. When WWTS is used in relatively good soilwith low salt levels the impact of WWTS treatment is reduced.

TABLE 14 Table 4.5. Soil Analysis Sodium EC, Cl, NO3—N, SO4—S, Na, K,Ca, Mg, Adsorption dS/m pH ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm Ratio Sandy LoamControl 0.93 8.22 160 ND 101 214 0.9 137 56 3.88 WWTS 1.07 8.19 190 ND100 240 0.8 137 54 4.38 Silty Loam Control 0.46 7.78 85 0.8 34 65 1.7 7126 1.67 WWTS 0.54 7.80 105 2.0 40 86 1.8 77 27 2.14 Sandy Clay Control1.30 7.92 185 1.0 172 205 6.0 257 74 2.89 WWTS 1.06 8.07 150 1.2 156 1753.5 242 68 2.55 Silty Clay Control 0.59 8.19 100 0.8 46 195 3.9 49 225.79 WWTS 0.79 7.92 140 0.8 74 258 1.5 64 32 6.55

Additional experiments were conducted to determine water productivity.Five (5) plants of each group, control and treatment, were irrigated by75% of the volume of water applied in the earlier experiment (150ml/plant) and five (5) other lettuce plants of each group were irrigatedby 50% of the volume of water applied in the earlier experiment (100ml/plant) for one month. Plants were grown in sandy clay soil. Thesegroups were then compared to the results obtained in the earlierexperiment in the group irrigated at 100% of the optimal water amount(treatment and control) in the same soil type over one month. It isimportant to note that 200 ml/plant /day is considered the optimalamount of irrigation for the plants. After one month the plants wereremoved and basic yield parameters were again evaluated and chemicalanalysis of plant tissues and soil were conducted (Table 15, 16, 17). Acomparison of basic yield parameters showed that plants irrigated withtreated water exhibited greater yields at all irrigation levels.

TABLE 15 Length of Number of Soil Group Leaves, g Height, cm Roots, cmLeaves Sandy WWTS 10.26 ± 3.47  17.40 ± 11.01 10.80 ± 3.77 10.80 ± 3.63Clay 50% Control  7.50 ± 2.39 14.80 ± 4.21 10.01 ± 1.58  8.40 ± 2.88Sandy WWTS 17.39 ± 4.56  32.80 ± 10.99  9.00 ± 1.22 14.20 ± 4.82 Clay75% Control  9.26 ± 1.91 21.00 ± 5.05 11.80 ± 2.28 11.28 ± 3.49 SandyWWTS 11.36 ± 3.57 24.00 ± 3.74 12.25 ± 0.50 15.00 ± 3.16 Clay 100%Control  9.46 ± 1.61 23.00 ± 1.00 11.67 ± 0.58 11.33 ± 2.31

TABLE 16 Test Description WWTS Control Unit Optimum Range A. 50%Irrigation Macro Nutrients Total Nitrogen (Leaf) 3.0 2.9 % 2.5-4.5Phosphorus (Leaf) 0.62 0.52 % 0.3-0.7 Potassium (Leaf) 4.93 4.03 %2.5-4.0 Calcium (Leaf) 1.55 1.90 % 2.5-5.0 Magnesium (Leaf) 0.67 0.58 %0.3-1.5 Micro Nutrients Zinc (Leaf) 70 45 ppm 20-60 Manganese (Leaf) 185121 ppm  60-400 Iron (Leaf) 198 152 ppm  50-300 Sodium (Leaf) 1.63 1.47%  0.0-0.35 B. 75% irrigation Macro Nutrients Total Nitrogen (Leaf) 3.53.0 % 2.5-4.5 Phosphorus (Leaf) 0.38 0.54 % 0.3-0.7 Potassium (Leaf)4.68 4.91 % 2.5-4.0 Calcium (Leaf) 1.26 1.81 % 2.5-5.0 Magnesium (Leaf)0.44 0.57 % 0.3-1.5 Micro Nutrients Zinc (Leaf) 84 30 ppm 20-60Manganese (Leaf) 106 88 ppm  60-400 Iron (Leaf) 163 150 ppm  50-300Sodium (Leaf) 1.33 1.19 %  0.0-0.35 C. 100% Irrigation Macro NutrientsTotal Nitrogen (Leaf) 3.3 2.9 % 2.5-4.5 Phosphorus (Leaf) 0.43 0.38 %0.3-0.7 Potassium (Leaf) 5.21 4.56 % 2.5-4.0 Calcium (Leaf) 1.84 1.61 %2.5-5.0 Magnesium (Leaf) 0.45 0.45 % 0.3-1.5 Micro Nutrients Zinc (Leaf)46 33 ppm 20-60 Manganese (Leaf) 53 60 ppm  60-400 Iron (Leaf) 124 115ppm  50-300 Sodium (Leaf) 0.81 0.82 %  0.0-0.35

TABLE 17 (Volume of Irrigation - 50%, 75%, and 100%) Sodium EC, Cl,NO3—N, SO4—S, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Adsorption dS/m pH ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppmppm Ratio 50% Control 2.30 7.92 340 23 294 299 5 442 121 3.24 WWTS 2.617.71 420 30 382 364 8 554 150 3.88 75% Control 2.05 7.92 325 14 315 2873 470 123 3.04 WWTS 2.81 7.79 330 7 352 298 3 515 134 3.02 100% Control1.30 7.92 185 1.0 172 205 6 257 74 2.89 WWTS 1.06 8.07 150 1.2 156 175 3242 68 2.55

Chemical analysis revealed that concentrations of microelements werehigher in the treatment group of plants. Zinc concentrations in thetreatment group increased from 46 ppm to 70 ppm, manganese increasedfrom 53 ppm to 185 ppm and iron increased from 124 ppm to 198 ppm whenthe volume of irrigation water was reduced from 100% to 50%. Increaseswere also noted in the control group, although not as significant. Lackof irrigation creates a strong stress factor on plants and they try tocompensate for lack of water by taking up more solutes from the soil. Asa result, they also uptake more nutrients. Treated water demonstratedsignificantly higher levels of permeability and consequently, plantsexpended less energy to uptake solutes leading to a larger yield andstronger plants.

Soil analysis showed a higher concentration of ions in the treatmentgroup. Although less significant when dealing with relatively good soil(SAR<7) where salt increases cannot impact the final yield, it could beof great significance when dealing with soil containing high, yieldimpacting, SAR levels. The fact that the treatment group had higher ionconcentrations suggests soil from the treatment group retains more water(such that fewer ions were flushed out) and soil becomes moister than inthe control group. In turn, these changes create conditions in whichplants can more readily uptake nutrients.

Experiment 2—Lucky Growers (San Marcos, June 2015, Squash)

An experimental field, approximately 450 ft. by 40 ft., covered by agreen house, was split into two parts. One part was irrigated by treatedwell water and the second part was irrigated by untreated well water(control group, NT). The experiment began when the squash plants wereabout two weeks old. Parameters of the irrigation (well) water arepresented in Table 18.

TABLE 18 Analyte Method Results DLR Units Total Metals: Calcium ICMethod 131.1 0.03 mg/L Magnesium IC Method 88.6 0.03 mg/L Potassium ICMethod 8.5 0.1 mg/L Sodium IC Method 85.7 0.1 mg/L Total Iron 3500-Fe B0.06 0.02 mg/L Manganese PAN method 0.03 0.005 mg/L Aluminum 3500-Al BNo 0.01 mg/L Zinc 3500-Zn 0.16 0.009 mg/L Cupper Bicinchohite No 0.02mg/L method Anions: Chloride 4110 B 231.3 0.25 mg/L Nitrate as N 4110 B27.8 0.3 mg/L Fluoride 4500-F⁻ D. 2.23 0.04 mg/L Sulfate 4110 B 207.60.1 mg/L Phosphate 4110 B No 0.06 mg/L Total Alkalinity 2320BBicarbonate 229 5 mg/L Total Alkalinity 188 5 mg/L as CaCO₃ pH 4500H7.40 0.01 NA Specific Conductance 2510B 1.58 0.1 mS/cm Total DissolvedSolids 2540C 1110 10 mg/L Silica 4500-SiO₂C 69.1 0.1 mg/L

Soil and plant tissue samples were collected on the 1^(st), 7^(th), and30^(th) day of the experiment. Soil and leaves were collected randomlythroughout the field from both sections of the growing area (WWTS andNT). A total of 20 soil cores and 20 leaves from each half of the fieldwere collected. During the first thirty days both sides (WWTS and NT) ofthe field were irrigated 7 times per day for 4 min. at 10 gpm. The totalamount of applied water was 280 gal. Fertilizer was added to waterapplied to the NT (control) side of the field. Fertilizers includeddifferent salts of nitrate, phosphoric acid, mono ammonium phosphate,and micronutrients. The N:P:K ratio was approximately 2:1:2. Nofertilizer was added to the treatment side of the field.

Soil analysis showed (Table 19) that the NT part of the field initiallyhad a higher concentration of salts. However, the concentration wasinsignificant for squash which has a high salt tolerance and is notimpacted by an EC below 4.7 dS/cm.

TABLE 19 (Soluble (S) and Extractable (E) Ions) Sodium EC, Cl, NO3—N,SO4—S, Na, K, Ca, Mg, P, Adsorption dS/m pH ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppmppm Ratio Sample 1^(st) Day NT 3.14 6.46 791 163 246 378 (S) 231 (S) 458 (S)  306 (S) 76 4.39 360 (E) 314 (E) 2746 (E)  912 (E) WWTS 1.416.53 319 80 89 137 (S)  64 (S)  221 (S)  131 (S) 64 1.80 140 (E) 106 (E)2105 (E)  586 (E) Sample 7^(th) Day NT 4.28 6.47 1018 232 287 435 (S)267 (S)  594 (S)  422 (S) 77 3.38 441 (E) 348 (E) 2826 (E) 1049 (E) WWTS1.47 7.01 339 37 98 175 (S)  24 (S)  203 (S)  125 (S) 31 2.41 274 (E) 69 (E) 2249 (E)  696 (E) Sample 30^(th) Day NT 5.46 6.23 1504 240 239675 (S) 197 (S)  748 (S)  573 (S) 86 4.50 683 (E) 271 (E) 2936 (E) 1124(E) WWTS 2.36 6.83 668 103 174 301 (S)  47 (S)  365 (S)  243 (S) 34 3.92260 (E) 85 (E) 2147 (E)  668 (E)

Soil analysis showed that by day 30 the accumulation (increase frombaseline) of sodium and chloride in the root zone was twice as high inthe field where untreated water was applied. Soluble sodium accumulationwas 297/164=1.8 times higher and soluble chloride accumulation was713/349=2.0 times higher in soil in the untreated area (Table 20)suggesting treated water flushed out sodium chloride from the plant'sroot zone and created more beneficial conditions for plants.

TABLE 20 Initial Final Concentration, Concentration, Difference, Ratio,Ion Water ppm ppm ppm Times Na WWTS 378 675 297 1.8 NT 137 301 164 ClWWTS 791 1504 713 2.0 NT 319 668 349

TABLE 21 NT WWTS Macro element, Day Day Recommended ppm Day 1 Day 7 30Day 1 Day 7 30 Range Potassium 231 267 197 64 24 47 273-407 Nitrogen 163232 240 80 37 103 120-180*/ Phosphorus 76 77 86 64 31 34  35-75 */atbull density 1.2 g/cc

Plant tissue (leaf) analysis (Table 22) did not show significantdifferences in macro nutrient concentrations between control andtreatment fields. However, a comparison of major nutrients (N,P,K) inthe soil showed that the treated part of the field initially containedmuch lower levels of macro elements and amounts generally declinedduring the field test (Table 21). In contrast, the concentration ofmacro elements increased in the part of the field not treated,presumably due to the added fertilizer.

TABLE 22 1^(st) Day Concentration Unit Optimum Range Macro NutrientsTotal Nitrogen (Leaf) 2.7 % 2.5-4.5 Phosphorus (Leaf) 0.88 % 0.3-0.7Potassium (Leaf) 4.28 % 2.5-4.0 Calcium (Leaf) 1.25 % 2.5-5.0 Magnesium(Leaf) 0.70 % 0.3-1.5 Micro Nutrients Zinc (Leaf) 61 ppm 20-60 Manganese(Leaf) 62 ppm  60-400 Iron (Leaf) 97 ppm  50-300 Copper (Leaf) 16 ppm 8-20 Sodium (Leaf) 0.08 %  0.0-0.35 7^(th) day WWTS NT Unit OptimumRange Macro Nutrients Total Nitrogen (Leaf) 3.2 2.6 % 2.5-4.5 Phosphorus(Leaf) 1.07 0.95 % 0.3-0.7 Potassium (Leaf) 4.15 5.87 % 2.5-4.0 Calcium(Leaf) 6.45 6.31 % 2.5-5.0 Magnesium (Leaf) 2.61 2.64 % 0.3-1.5 MicroNutrients Zinc (Leaf) 61 45 ppm 20-60 Manganese (Leaf) 76 70 ppm  60-400Iron (Leaf) 248 223 ppm  50-300 Copper (Leaf) 36 35 ppm  8-20 Sodium(Leaf) 0.04 0.17 %  0.0-0.35 30^(th) Day WWTS NT Unit Optimum RangeMacro Nutrients Total Nitrogen (Leaf) 2.5 3.1 % 2.5-4.5 Phosphorus(Leaf) 1.01 1.03 % 0.3-0.7 Potassium (Leaf) 3.06 3.81 % 2.5-4.0 Calcium(Leaf) 5.52 5.55 % 2.5-5.0 Magnesium (Leaf) 2.09 2.35 % 0.3-1.5 MicroNutrients Zinc (Leaf) 66 67 ppm 20-60 Manganese (Leaf) 86 66 ppm  60-400Iron (Leaf) 185 203 ppm  50-300 Copper (Leaf) 32 24 ppm  8-20 Sodium(Leaf) 0.07 0.04 %  0.0-0.35

Despite the low N-P-K concentrations in the soil of the treated area,leaves on the plants irrigated with treated water did not show anydeficit of macro or microelements. This suggests that plants morereadily uptake required nutrients from relatively poor soil whenirrigated with treated water. In other words, treated water increasedthe efficiency of the uptake process. The water content of fruit giventreated water was also compared to fruit given control water. It wasfound that fruit from the treated part of the field contained 4.8±0.9%more water than plants from the untreated area. Finally, at the end ofthe experiment the yield of fruit in the control group at the end of theexperiment was 41 boxes compared to 58 boxes in the group irrigated byWWTS (each box held 50 squash), a greater than 41% increase.

Experiment 3—Stone Residence Orange Trees (May, 2015)

Prior to the experiment, all orange trees were irrigated with municipalwater. During the experiment, trees were split into two groups. Thefirst group was irrigated by treated well water and the second group wasirrigated by untreated, municipal water. The major parameters of thewater types are presented in Table 23 below:

TABLE 23 EC, Chloride, Sodium, Water mS/cm pH ppm ppm Municipal 0.828.11 80.4 82.5 Well 3.78 7.16 784.3 530.8

TABLE 24 Sodium EC, Cl, NO3—N, SO4—S, Na, K, Ca, Mg, P, AdsorptionSample dS/m pH ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm Ratio NT 1.14 5.56 1601.5 151 215 (S) 140 (S)  174 (S)  48 (S) 7 3.76 279 (E) 283 (E) 2436 (E)417 (E) WWTS 3.44 4.42 253 54 1050 273 (S) 367 (S) 1720 (S) 247 (S) 51.65 321 (E) 469 (E) 3547 (E) 418 (E) Soluble (S) and Extractable (E)Ions

TABLE 25 Irrigated by City Irrigated by Optimum Test Description WaterMTW Units Range Macro Nutrients Total Nitrogen (Leaf) 2.15 2.22 %2.4-2.6 Phosphorus (Leaf) 0.11 0.11 % 0.12-0.16 Potassium (Leaf) 0.851.05 % 0.7-1.1 Calcium (Leaf) 2.71 2.39 % 3.0-5.5 Magnesium (Leaf) 0.190.22 % 0.26-0.60 Micro Nutrients Zinc (Leaf) 30 64 ppm  25-100 Manganese(Leaf) 19 29 ppm  25-200 Iron (Leaf) 305 117 ppm  60-120 Copper (Leaf)21 25 ppm  5-16 Sodium (Leaf) 0.19 0.05 %  0.0-0.16

Soil and plant tissue samples were collected after two weeks. Results ofthe analyses are presented in Table 24 and 25. Data showed that soil pHin the treatment group was dramatically reduced, from 5.56 to 4.42 andat the same time, some salts were dissolved. Concentrations of solubleions increased and extractable ions decreased such that the ratios ofextractable/soluble ions changed from 8.7 to 1.7 for calcium, from 14 to2 for magnesium, and from 2 to 1.3 for potassium.

The increase of soluble calcium and magnesium decreased the SodiumAdsorption Ration (SAR). After treatment, SAR dropped reaching the“Ideal” value of 1.65. This optimal SAR provides for a higher rate ofsoil permeability and infiltration. Despite the fact that the EC of thewell water was much higher than municipal water, concentrations ofsodium and chloride in soil remained at similar levels in both treatmentand control groups. This suggests that treated water flushed out sodiumand chloride. Zinc and manganese concentrations were again higher inplants irrigated with treated water. Visual observation of plants showedrapid leaf color changes where they beame more visibly green andsaturated. Manganese is the microelement responsible for photosynthesisand along with zinc has a direct impact on leaf color and saturation.

CONCLUSION

The following important conclusions can be drawn from these experiments:

1. Plants irrigated with treated water showed increased growth ratesamong all three different types of plant species (lettuce, squash andorange).

2. Experiments conducted with lettuce grown in four different soilsshowed that basic yield parameters were higher in three of four soils(silty loam, sandy clay and silty clay) irrigated by treated water.Lettuce's yield in sandy loam was essentially unchanged from controlgroup to treatment group.

3. Changes in the physical and chemical properties of treated waterallowed plants to more effectively uptake water. Up to 50% reductions inthe volume of water used in irrigation are supported when water istreated first.

4. Plants irrigated with treated water more effectively took upimportant plant nutrients, especially zinc, one of the most importantnutrients. Moreover, a chemical analysis of plant leaves irrigated with50% and 75% of total treated water released higher concentrations ofother microelements such as manganese and iron.

5. Despite the low concentration of nutrients in soil, plants irrigatedby treated water did not show any deficit of macro or microelementsthereby showing that plants irrigated with treated water had increasedefficiency of nutrient uptake.

6. Experiments conducted with three different levels of salinity fromdifferent well sources (1.9, 1.6 and 3.8 mS/cm) showed that treatedwater reduced the normally harmful effects of water salinity.

Hard Water Experiment

The formation of calcium carbonate is a common ionic reaction that takesplace in natural environments and creates a problem known as scaling,which is present in our everyday life and in various industrialprocesses and technologies. Despite the simplicity of the reaction thereis considerable variability in the properties of the solid product, suchas: crystal form, particle size distribution, electro-kinetic potential,etc. One of the most important applications of WWTS treated water isscale prevention and elimination.

Although the exact mechanics of the interaction between magnetictreatments and calcium carbonate in solution is still unknown thefollowing hypothesis is most probable. In solution, high concentrationsof calcium carbonate tend to precipitate out of solution in the form ofcalcium carbonate crystals (calcite). Crystal formation normally occursvia a “seeding” effect on the surfaces of naturally-occurring, foreigncarbonate particles. Crystal formation in water with high concentrationsof calcium carbonate tends to occur on hard surfaces such as tile,plaster, metal and plastic. Magnetically treated water directly affectsthe equilibrium of carbonate in water and breaks up the large, watermolecule/carbonate complexes. Thus, after treatment, calcium carbonateprecipitates on particles in solution, not on hard surfaces, and isremoved by filtration.

In addition to inhibiting precipitation on hard surfaces, magnetictreatment also breaks down and removes previously deposited crystalformations. As magnetically treated water has a lower surface density,it tends to weaken the bond between the wall and the calcium carbonateso that deposits break off in large pieces from walls and othersurfaces. The dissolving process may take several days or even weeks.Detached crystals can be caught by filtration and/or slowly dissolved inmagnetized water producing a higher water calcium concentration and amore alkaline pH level.

The experimental was conducted in two similar, water-circulating units,one containing treated water, the other without treated water.Submersible pumps were installed on the bottom of two water tanks (20gal). Recirculation loops were made from PVC pipes. Seven gallons ofmunicipal were added to each tank and pumped through at a flow rate 3gpm. A five-micron filter was installed in the loop of both systems tomeasure calcium carbonate scale levels in each unit at the end of theexperiment. Muriatic acid and chlorinating solution were added to thetanks every day to keep pH within a range 7.0-7.5 and chlorineconcentrations between 0.8-1.5 ppm (average ranges for most swimmingpools and water features). Water was recirculated continuously for 500Hours. Water samples were taken every day to check EC, pH and chlorineconcentrations. Concentrations of anions and cations were checked at thebeginning and end of the experiment. Five different pieces of olderswimming pool surfaces with differing areas, sizes, surfaces and scaleconcentrations were placed on the bottom of each tank: 1) glazed tile;2) green plaster; 3) white plaster; 4) blue plaster and; 5) pebble(Table 26).

TABLE 26 Type of Control WWTS surface Area, cm² Area, cm² Amount SurfaceColor Glazed Tile 16.0 16.0 2 Smooth Blue Plaster I 34.0 21.5 1 PorousGreen Plaster II 40.0 42.0 1 Porous White Plaster III 28.0 30.0 1 PorousBlue Pebble Finishes 46.0 60.0 1 Smooth BlackVisual inspection of the pieces was conducted before and after theexperiment. The following was observed:

1. The surface of Plaster III was a blue-greenish color prior totreatment. After treatment, it became blue in treated water, control wasunchanged.

2. The surface of Plaster II became whiter in the treatment unit.

3. Glazed Tiles became more bluish and clean.

4. Green plaster was unchanged.

5. Black pebble became brighter and cleaner.

Generally speaking, visual observation supported the hypothesis thattreated water reduced scale formation and removed existing crystaldeposits

Water chemical parameters were measured before and after the experiment.Concentrations of calcium were 42% higher in the treatment group,compared to control supporting the hypothesis that calcium carbonatescaling on surfaces was inhibited and prior surface deposits weredissolved. To determine the comparative levels of calcium concentrationon the surfaces of both the treatment and control pieces, small sectionsof each (16 cm²) were cleaned by 1 ml of HCl (1:1) and then diluted to50 ml by distilled water. Calcium concentrations in the distilled watersolution was determined by ionic chromatography (Table 27).

TABLE 27 Ca on the Calcium Type of surface, ug/cm² Reduction, Watersurface Control WWTS times Parameter Initial Control WWTS Glazed 318.1104.1 3.0 EC, mS/cm 1.08 1.59 1.64 Tile Plaster I 1746.6 973.4 1.8 pH8.16 7.53 7.46 Plaster II 3157.8 2295.9 1.4 Ca, ppm 77.9 90.6 128.6Plaster 785.5 720.6 1.1 Mg, ppm 26.5 23.9 16.2 III Pebble 1781.9 995.61.8 Cl, ppm 90.6 335.4 331.3 Finishes

Calcium levels on all surfaces from the treatment group weresignificantly lower than the control group. Reductions ranged from 10%to 300% with the largest reductions occurring on the least poroussurfaces.

The five-micron filter was placed in an ultrasonic bath (in 1 L ofdistilled water) for 20 minutes to remove solid particles from thesurface. Most removed particles were organic in nature and no calciumcarbonate crystals were found on the surface or in the water. The filterused in the treatment group had a greater concentration of calciumcompared to the control group (14.1 mg and 12.0 mg, respectively).

The data demonstrated that treated water is a stronger solvent thanuntreated water. The reduction of calcium concentrations on the varioussurfaces and the simultaneous increase of calcium concentrations in thewater of the treatment unit demonstrated that treated water inhibits theprecipitation of scale deposits on hard surfaces and removes previouslydeposited crystal formations. The rate of removal of prior deposits wasdependent on the porosity of the surface.

An embodiment of the present invention provides a device directed to: 1)in-line installation within the plumbing of landscape and agriculturalirrigation systems, residential, whole-house systems and pools,fountains and other decorative water feature systems and; 2) attachmentto faucets and garden hoses for additional residential uses.

One embodiment of the present invention provides a water treatmentdevice for the in-line treatment of water, the water treatment devicecomprised of:

a housing;

at least a first flange unit and a second flange unit;

at least a large screen;

at least a small screen; and

a active-ceramic bead media.

In a preferred embodiment, the housing is make from a durable plasticmaterial.

In a further preferred embodiment, the flange units, the screens and theactive-ceramic beads are enclosed in a separate, removable “active cell”unit which itself fits into the housing. A proprietary tool is requiredto remove the active cell for maintenance or replacement.

In another embodiment of the present invention, the housing is furthercomprised of:

an upper housing;

a lower housing;

and a coupler disposed between the upper housing and the lower housing.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, the upper housingand the lower housing are further comprised of chambers. In a preferredembodiment, the chambers of the upper housing are configured to containvarious elements of the water treatment device, including the first andsecond flange units. In another preferred embodiment, the chambers ofthe lower housing are configured to contain the larger screen, thesmaller screen and the active-ceramic bead media, the active-ceramicbead media disposed in a chamber located between the larger screen andthe smaller screen.

In still another embodiment of the present invention, the first flangeand the second flange are further comprised of a plurality of openingsand baffles, the openings configured to receive “donut-style” rare-earthmagnets in a precise design and the baffles configured to allow for theflow of water through the first flange and the second flange. In apreferred embodiment, the magnet placement within the first flange is inopposition to the magnet placement within the second flange. In a morepreferred embodiment, the flanges may contain a plurality of openings,each opening receiving a rare-earth magnet. The flanges are typicallycreated from ½ inch thick, clear polycarbonate plastic. Although othersuitable materials may be utilized, i.e. epoxy resin, polycarbonateplastic is the preferred material due to its ability to withstand theforces created within the water treatment system.

In yet a further embodiment of the present invention, the active-ceramicbead media may be comprised from any appropriate ceramic filtrationmedia from an FDA approved, commercial supplier. In a preferredembodiment, the ceramic bead media may be comprised from an optimizedmixture of beads capable of exerting the desired improvements on thewater passing through the water treatment system. In a further preferredembodiment, the optimized mixture may be determined by experimentalresults from test treatments of local water profiles. In a mostpreferred embodiment, the optimized media may be chosen based on the enduse of the water to be treated, i.e. irrigation, household oragriculture.

In another embodiment the present invention, the water treatment devicemay treat water originating from natural sources such as wells, streamsand rivers as well as municipal water prior to end use.

In a further embodiment of the present invention, the water treatmentdevice may customized for treatment of the water profile in thegeographical area of installation.

In still another embodiment of the present invention, the watertreatment device alters the characteristics of water passing through thesystem by altering both the physical and chemical properties of thetreated water.

Another embodiment of the present invention provides a water treatmentdevice which utilizes at least four treatment modalities: 1) rare-earthmagnets configured in a unique arrangement; 2) active-ceramic beads; 3)vortex generators and; 4) design features which create a lowpressure/flow rate and high water-volume environment, in a singlesystem.

In a further still embodiment of the present invention, the watertreatment device may be custom configured to achieve desirable pHranges.

Another embodiment of the present invention provides a water treatmentdevice that when used with appropriate filtration technology, isdesigned to remove harmful contaminants and enhance beneficial minerals.

Yet another embodiment of the present invention provides a watertreatment device that improves the ability of plants to uptake waterresulting in reduced use of water in irrigation and agriculturalapplications.

Still another embodiment of the present invention provides a watertreatment device that improves the ability of plants to uptakebeneficial nutrients resulting in reduced use of fertilizer inirrigation and agricultural applications.

Yet another embodiment of the present invention provides a watertreatment device that dissolves and flushes away harmful salts resultingin improved agricultural production.

Another embodiment of the present invention provides a water treatmentdevice that improves the permeability of water through soil, membranesand biological systems.

Still another embodiment of the present invention provides a watertreatment device that demonstrates its greatest effect on the poorestquality soil and water.

Yet another embodiment of the present invention provides a watertreatment device that reduces the rate of hard water scale formation insystems handling water with high calcium carbonate concentrations.

Another embodiment of the present invention provides a water treatmentdevice that dissolves previously deposited hard water scale formationsin systems handling water with high calcium carbonate concentrations.

A further embodiment of the present invention provides An apparatus forfiltering water comprising at least two halves separated by at least onecoupler, comprising:

(a) a first half comprising a first screen and a second screen, whereinan array of ceramic beads rests in between the first screen and thesecond screen;

(b) a second half further comprising at least one layer comprising atleast one membrane further comprising an arrangement of magnets setwithin the membrane, wherein the arrangement of magnets is interspersedwith a series of water flow passages allowing for the passage of waterfrom one side of the at least one layer to the other side of the atleast one layer.

It will be appreciated that details of the foregoing embodiments, givenfor purposes of illustration, are not to be construed as limiting thescope of the invention. Although several embodiments of this inventionhave been described in detail above, those skilled in the art willreadily appreciate that many modifications are possible in the exemplaryembodiments without materially departing from the novel teachings andadvantages of this invention. Accordingly, all such modifications areintended to be included within the scope of this invention, which isfurther defined in the converted utility application and appendedclaims. Further, it is recognized that many embodiments may be conceivedthat do not achieve all the advantages of some embodiments, particularlypreferred embodiments, yet the absence of a particular advantage shallnot be construed to necessarily mean that such an embodiment is outsidethe scope of the present invention.

1. A water treatment device comprising at least four treatmentmodalities in a single unit, the treatment modalities comprised of:rare-earth magnets configured in a unique configuration; active ceramicbeads; vortex generators; and a design which creates a low pressure/flowrate and high water environment.
 2. A method of improving thepermeability of water within an environment, comprising: installing awater treatment device in-line with an existing plumbing system;allowing water to pass through the water treatment device; and using thetreated water for an intended end use.
 3. The method of claim 2 whereinthe water treatment device is comprised of: a housing made of durableplastic material the housing including an upper housing and a lowerhousing combined by a couple located between the upper housing and thelower housing; a first flange unit and a second flange unit locatedwithin chambers inside the housing; a large screen and a small screenlocated within the lower housing; active-ceramic bead media locatedbetween the large screen and the small screen; and a plurality ofcut-outs within the first flange and the second flange wherein thecut-outs are configured to receive donut shape rare-earth magnets. 4.The method of claim 2 wherein the permeability is improved in soil,membranes or biological systems.
 5. The method of claim 2 wherein theinstallation of the device may be within a system selected from thegroup consisting of landscape, agriculture, residential, whole housesystems, pools, fountains, water features, faucets and garden hoses. 6.The method of claim 2 wherein the intended end use is selected from thegroup consisting of irrigation, household and agriculture.
 7. Anapparatus for treating water comprising at least two halves separated byat least one coupler, comprising: (a) a first half comprising a firstscreen and a second screen, wherein an array of ceramic beads rests inbetween the first screen and the second screen; (b) a second halffurther comprising at least one layer comprising at least one flangefurther comprising an arrangement of magnets set within the flange,wherein the arrangement of magnets is interspersed with a series ofwater flow passages allowing for the passage of water from one side ofthe at least one layer to the other side of the at least one layer.